Continuity
What do you notice about the two buildings as aligned together? In reality they are at a short distance from each other in the old town of Kraków. They come from two distant epochs – the Franciscan church was built in the Middle Ages and the modern pavilion hosting a tourist information centre is a new addition to the historic urban space. Now they coexist playing different roles and having different functions. Still they correspond to each other in many respects. Let’s consider some aspects of this visible continuity.
Let’s first compare the shapes of the two buildings and the interplay of horizontal and vertical lines. Gothic churches were erected like monuments pointing to the heavens, hence the predominance of the vertical. The modern building responds to this orientation through its towering facade, still it distances itself from the church by showing its mundane, ’rounded’ character. The two forms thus signal their different functions, still some continuity of styles is maintained. This is further supported by the choice of material. The modern building has a brick facade with limestone framing of the windows which clearly refers to the combination of materials used in Krakow gothic churches. Certainly this isn’t a replica of a mediaeval facade – the layout of the bricks and the modern simplicity of the window frames have a different ‘tone’.
Now let’s compare the stained-glass windows in both the buildings: this is the most conspicuous aspect of the continuity between the old and the modern. The process already begun in the church which had to be restored after a fire. Original mediaeval windows were then filled in with unique stained-glass by a brilliant art-nouveau artist. This is already a part of history as the replacement was made at the turn of XIX and XX centuries and since then the church windows have become a part of Krakow cultural heritage. Now the new building resumes this theme as an exhibition venue for three stained-glasses, designed by the same artist over a century ago but realised only now. Magnify to see them better – the whole project is an excellent example of a dialogue between the historic and the contemporary with brilliant artisanship at the very centre of the encounter.
The new building of the tourist information centre is also a good example of the current approach to preservation of cultural heritage environments. Its founding document, the Charter of Venice of 1964, clearly states that additions to historic settings “must be distinct from the architectural composition and must bear a contemporary stamp.” Accordingly, new buildings in such environments must be distinguishable from the historic ones to avoid falsification of artistic or historic evidence. However, this requirement shouldn’t be taken as an invitation to introducing discordant new forms or materials in historic settings, which may result in the destruction of historic character of the place where such innovations are realized.
Our cultural heritage environments need to be protected not only against destruction but also against insensitive modification through insertion of discordant elements or styles. The precious fabric of historic urban spaces has long been endangered by such advances with disastrous consequences for their unique character. Current preservation battles tend to be now not so much against physical destruction of historic properties for the sake of economic development but rather against extravagant architectural designs.
However, historic places are still living entities. The question is how they can grow and accommodate change without losing their character. What matters most here is the appropriateness of a proposed intervention, rather than its exact conformance with the style of the buildings around – the architecture of the past and that of the present need not contradict each other in our cultural heritage environments. This doesn’t mean copying historic styles but rather advocating creative input which would not erode historic character of the urban environment.
We’d like to close this module encouraging you to compare the Wyspianski Pavilion in Kraków with another modern icon building, Kunsthaus in Graz. They were designed around the same time and for the same occasion of the two cities becoming European Capitals of Culture, Kraków in 2000 and Graz in 2003. They both sit in historic settings, still they relate to their environments in very different ways. The following links are good starting points to gather data for the comparison but you’ll easily find more information on the Internet on the two high-profile works by noted European architects:
Now consider and discuss with your tutor the following points:
- How do the two buildings relate to their environment?
- Do they respond to their historic surroundings in the same way?
- What impact do they have on the urban ‘grain’ – the pattern of streets and spaces?
- What is the effect of the scale of the modern insertions?
- How do the colour, texture and pattern of the used materials contribute to the desired effect of the interventions?
- Do both the buildings continue the historical developments of the places?
